Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sceptic trying to read Oreganon - help needed?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sceptic trying to read Oreganon - help needed?

    Ok, i assumed that reading the oreganon will be useless, as my close minded attidude guarantees, that i do not understand the oreganon and see mistakes, where non are made. As Bach thinks this to be further proff of being close minded and a bit stupid here is my try to read the oreganon.
    I took 6th edition from http://www.homeopathyhome.com/refere...n/organon.html and tried to descibe what Hahnemann says in my own words, as this will allow people knowing homeopathy to see where/if i misunderstood. Would be nice if someone told me, if so.
    The numbers of course correspond to the numbers in the oreganon.



    1.Healing is the task, no speculations about what internally goes on in human being.

    foot note:
    Irritated by: "their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed)"

    2.fast, full healing without side effects is cool

    3.description what a perfect healer should know and be able to do

    4.perfect healer also knows how living style/enviroment should be so disease does not even happen

    5. good to know if anything greatly influenced the disease and significant changes in chronic diseases. To find these a lot needs to be known about patient.
    Irritated by: miasm, translates into german as miasm or infectious agent, which doesn't fit well

    6. doc, again no wasting time with speculations, as they cannot be proved/confirmed in any way by reality, only notes symtons of illness, which are either told by patient or can be observed via normal human senses. This info is all that is needed for treatment.

    foot note: docs, which ignore the symtons and try to find causes in the interiorand treat according to these, ignoring the visible and felt symptons and think this is good treatment are not understandable(idiots?)

    True cause of the disease is hidden in the invisible immaterial part of the human being(spirit,soul), the only perceivable things are the symptons, therefore making this symptons disappear fully and forever is curing, while allopaths want to heal the cause they think is in the material body.


    7.if no relevant point as explained in 5. can be found then there are only the symptons, and they are only relevant for treating/selecting remedy

    foot note1: gives examples of causes, which have to be removed to help patient
    foot note2: allopaths, as they do not know how to heal, often try to suppress a single sympton, this does not help, as to defeat a disease all symtons have to be made to disappear.

    8.if all symptons gone, then healthy, if does not make sense and cannot be proven, that any illness could be hidden further without showing in symptons.

    footnote: its stupid to assume otherwise and this can come from the mistake to assume a disease is something purely material, but its mostly a dearanged immaterial part of human

    9. if healthy the immaterial part of human keeps the material part going, so human can do, what he is meant to do

    10. without the immaterial part, the material part is simply dead

    11. ill means that, the immaterial part is not functioning perfectly and this then causes the misfunctioning of the body, what we call disease. The symptons are the only information about the malfunctioning immaterial part, that are avaible.
    Foot note2: explanation of dynamic. Dynamicily means any process, where cause and effect are not linked in a material way or where the connection between cause and effect is not obvious. Someone talented and trained is able to still see cause and effect, even if its not obvious, how they are connected.
    Examples for dynamic action is moon moving around earth without material connection, magnets can magnetize iron without touching, small pox is transferred without material interaction.
    Any useful medicine has to act in such a immaterial way, as it has to influence the immaterial body, which cannot be done via material means. Different medicines can have different immaterial effects. The material effects and the immaterial effects of the medicine are not directly dependant on each other, therefore it is possible though potentization do away the material effects and thereby acquire the immaterial effects in a more pure form and therefore this potentized medicines can have far greater effect.
    The physical and chemical characteristics of such potentized substances give allow no conclusion upon the immaterial effects, as these are invisible. Potentization allows to free the immaterial effects from the material ones, which makes them stronger.
    Further examples of immaterial effects, vomiting upon seeing something ugly, moving the arm.



    Thanks,
    Carn

    (I do not think post belongs in this section, but it seems i belong here.)

  • #2
    hi carn,

    a few things:

    1. no, i don't think you're stupid. i don't even think hans is stupid. in fact, i think you're both pretty smart.

    2. no, idon't thing you or hans are close-minded, exactly, though your comments cause me to examine the term a bit more closely than i ordinarily might have done, which is always a good thing. i do think that you and hans and all skeptics and all people are innately biased. even open-minded people will be blocked from some perceptions and some understandings because of their bias, which can include not only "normal pigheadedness," which hans is so good at ( ), but which can also come about on the basis of past experience: just for example, if you have a negative experience with something, you will be less inclined to trust it on a future occasion. thus, one might assume in simple style, my negative experiences with allopathy and positive experiences with homeopathy predispose me to be more curious about homeopathy, whilst your opposite experience predispose you oppositely.

    i.e., when i tell you homeopathy works, in your gut you just don't believe it, you have "negative faith." all of your reading and inquiry will be influence by this.

    3. how would you respond to a new student who, on the first day of class, dropped off his notes from reading the first chapter of your text, and asked you to comment on it ... then said he'd be back at the end of the quarter.

    4. your comments regarding what irritates you about the organon are terrific! those are probably good places to start your study of the subject. otherwise, keep plugging away, and remember, reading a book once and talking about it on the internet would not have gotten you your degrees. i'm sorry if this puts me in position of having told you to read the good book, only to turn around and tell you that's not enough - i hadn't intended such a consequence, but in the midst of any discussion that ensues, please remember the things that you would consider necessary, for a student to metamorphose into an actual physicist.* measure your efforts to understand homeopathy by a similar standard, please.

    bach

    *ADD: or even to complete a semester course with a good grade, reflecting adequate knowledge of subject, and demonstrating an ability to see past preconceived notions and flat-earth biases. failure to achieve these things, even if otherwise his studies are good, earns a 'C.' but if you want to talk seriously to the professionals, and have your input treated respectfully, you'll need more than that.
    Last edited by bwv11; 2nd December 2004, 07:39 PM.
    "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Bach,
      thanks for the flowers.

      "1. no, i don't think you're stupid. i don't even think hans is stupid. in fact, i think you're both pretty smart.

      2. no, idon't thing you or hans are close-minded, exactly, though your comments cause me to examine the term a bit more closely than i ordinarily might have done, which is always a good thing. i do think that you and hans and all skeptics and all people are innately biased. even open-minded people will be blocked from some perceptions and some understandings because of their bias, which can include not only "normal pigheadedness," which hans is so good at ( ), but which can also come about on the basis of past experience: just for example, if you have a negative experience with something, you will be less inclined to trust it on a future occasion. thus, one might assume in simple style, my negative experiences with allopathy and positive experiences with homeopathy predispose me to be more curious about homeopathy, whilst your opposite experience predispose you oppositely.

      i.e., when i tell you homeopathy works, in your gut you just don't believe it, you have "negative faith." all of your reading and inquiry will be influence by this."

      About negative faith, certainly i so far do not believe, that homeopathy is working beyond placebo, because i heard and read about several studies, which either showed no effect or a very small effect above placebo. Also i do not know any good reason why shaken water should heal.

      But would this negative faith keep me from understanding the oreganon?

      In science its perfectly normal that followers of opposing theories, get familiar with the theory of the "enemy" and try to understand it and this normally works. Of course the intent is to find a weakness and bring it down, but this goal does not interfere with the understanding and if they do not find any weakness, it indicates theory has something.
      Even someone disbelieving physics could study and understand it.


      "3. how would you respond to a new student who, on the first day of class, dropped off his notes from reading the first chapter of your text, and asked you to comment on it ... then said he'd be back at the end of the quarter.
      "

      New students get on the first day some homework, they can only solve, if they understand the first chapter and draw the correct conclusions from it. So effectively that's what just happens, they drop off notes about conclusions they drew from the first chapter and expect me to tell them what they got wrong and how it is done correctly.

      But i remebered that in our previous discussion, you complained about me taking your posts/ others texts, draw conclusions from it and then ask, whether they are correct and if not what is wrong. So i decided to draw no conclusions to see, if i have a reading problem.

      Or do you have any suggestion how i can find out if i understood the part of the oreganon correctly?


      "4. your comments regarding what irritates you about the organon are terrific! those are probably good places to start your study of the subject. otherwise, keep plugging away, and remember, reading a book once and talking about it on the internet would not have gotten you your degrees. i'm sorry if this puts me in position of having told you to read the good book, only to turn around and tell you that's not enough - i hadn't intended such a consequence, but in the midst of any discussion that ensues, please remember the things that you would consider necessary, for a student to metamorphose into an actual physicist. measure your efforts to understand homeopathy by a similar standard, please.

      bach"

      Nothing to say about the things, that do not irritate me?
      No matter, apparent from your further comments, that is another useless attempt to get some understanding about homeopathy.

      And by the way reading 4 books once is in principle enough to get a bachelor in physics. All the other stuff, e.g. courses, excercises, exams,... is just for helping students, help tham to judge how far they got, help them to avoid laziness and to filter out those, who are simply not good enough(would be unfair to lett someone study 2 years and afterwards he realize he misunderstood everything).

      Someone reading a physic book and understanding it, is perfectly competent to discuss any physical problem, which is within the themes the book covers. He only does not have a degree, that proves it. Whether or not he got the content right could be quickly determined by any physic with a degree.

      So according to my standards, its just perfet to start by reading the book, that most simply and yet without mistakes explains the basics of homeopathy.

      I'm not certain, but i think that the oreganon covers most of homeopathy correctly, so reading and understanding it, should allow to discuss most aspects of homeopathy without making oneself a complete fool in the eyes of the professionals (unless oreganon is fundamentally flawed).

      Reaction to Hans posts make me think, that often he realy makes a fool of himself in the eyes of homeopaths. Ignoring my nasty suggestion in brackets from here on, this means he has misunderstood Oreganon.

      Of course, there is no point for me to read the oreganon and end with the same wrong understanding Hans has, as my goal would be to get a rough, but correct understanding. So it would be good to understand, what Hans got wrong. Unfortunately I do not think he can tell me or maybe his explanation would not be correct from homeopathic POV(maybe something like "I do not believe in homeopathy, so i fail to ignore, unlike believers, the numerous big mistakes Hahnemann does and homeopaths do in applying oreganon, which get more and more the closer i read and think about it." or "Unlike homeopaths i actually read, what Hahnemann has wriiten and not, what i like ").

      Now while reading first parts of Oreganon, there were not only several things where the usual "how do you know that" comes up, i also thought about what i read and among other things i ended up with a conclusion, that is nearly just a different wording of Hans's argument in the other thread that vital force is a single channel and that this is fundamental for homeopathy to be logic in any way.
      While i think there might be some slight differences between what i got and what Hans says, you seemed to directly refute Hans's argument as completely wrong.

      This makes me think, that i have already now done the same mistake as Hans.

      It could be:

      -reading mistake, therefore the above

      -mistake, when rewording it(i guess for this one)

      -reasoning mistake, difficult to find

      -Further information from other pages of the Oreganon is needed, as this paragraphs just give a overview and are kept short and therefore lead to conclusions that are wrong

      - some general mistake in the approach, but i cannot see how this alone could lead to wrong conclusions, when just trying to understand the meaning of the words



      But no need for anyone to answer, i already understood, that by reading the oreganon one cannot hope to understand homeopathy.

      So my good old ways to get knowledge about something, reading a good book about theme or asking someone with a lot of nerves questions, does not seem to work with homeopathy.

      What way would work?

      Carn

      Comment


      • #4
        The funny thing is, if I have misunderstood the Organon, why haven't any of the good people here set me right? I have even published my comments. If I had gotten it all wrong, why haven't they shredded my arguments? A year or so ago when I published my article in the same place (gave you the link earlier), several of the people here read it and commented .. on whether it was right that I cited already published case stories. Nobody seemed to have any issues with my description of homeopathy. Of course it might be that they just didn't bother, but later the article (minus case stories) was published in SkepticReport, and at that time there were several homeopaths active there, but none of them had any comments, either. I take it as an indication that I have made no factual errors of importance, but I could be wrong, of course.

        Hans
        You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          hi carn,

          yeh, your observations are sensible, and i'm not entirely sure how to respond to them, so this is just speculative, a stab at trying to understand why communications between skeptics and therapists never work. part of the problem may be that, from our pov, a correct initial understanding always seems to end up derailed by spurious 'information,' the bias to disbelief at some point or another interferring with drawing necessary conclusions. as there are essentially two ways to resolve the matter, by presenting 'proofs,' we end up coming to blows later on: the proofs being statistical vs clinical findings. now, your methods consistently show that our methods don't really work, so you don't accept our outcomes as proof; and, from my pov, i have seen in psychotherapy as in homeopathy for many years, that your methods are deeply flawed and your findings 'not credible,' so i conclude that your methods don't work. there is no way past the impasse.

          in short, when i tell you that your approach, which in other areas is unobjectionable, is 'inappropriate' to the study of homeopathy, what i think i'm really saying is that there is no way to settle the issue. in physics, you disagree, ok, then you take your disagreement to the lab and settle it. but, as between researchers and homeopaths, there is no commonly accepted yardstick. one thing that drives me nuts in these conversations, is the willingness of skeptics to acknowledge that a negative outcome for homeopathy in a trial necessarily reflects one of two things: either that homeopathy doesn't work, or that the trial was fatally flawed. in practice, however, they always (always) "regress" to assuming that their method is the one to trust.

          but, of course, from my pov, your method hasn't worked, so why should i trust it? especially when i've been able to show (from my pov) quite adequately and in some detail how a trial could be undermined through poor conception, definition, implementation.
          "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


          Comment


          • #6
            as for hans' point, the fact is that his arguments have been shredded, but he invariably regresses to stating his original premises in rebuttal, starting arguments all over again and ignoring or not understanding the refutation. he's exactly the same in this regard, as kv is from his pov regarding physics, but he doesn't get it.

            i have to assume, on the basis of my considerable experience with skeptics and statisticians, that you won't get it either, carn: that is clearly evidence of bias, telescoping outcome of a talk with you on the basis of past talks with other 'alter-egos,' so to speak. but i really don't mind doing this, i even enjoy it, which is why i spend so much time at it, as i do consider the enterprise worthwhile, so long as you maintain a reasonable intellectual position that assumes we are two intelligent people who disagree.

            but, you know, that's a relatively friendly framework and difficult to maintain, with people who are politically in a very adversarial relationship. geesh, have you visited a physics discussion group lately? your guys are down each other's throats, too! and the homeopaths are pretty good at scratching each other's eyes out. you know, it's just a hard thing for people to do, to maintain civility in the face of disagreement over issues they perceive are significant.
            "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Bach,
              as always, i ask myself what path connects my previous posts to your answers and the answer is not very obvious for me.

              "hi carn,

              yeh, your observations are sensible, and i'm not entirely sure how to respond to them, so this is just speculative, a stab at trying to understand why communications between skeptics and therapists never work. part of the problem may be that, from our pov, a correct initial understanding always seems to end up derailed by spurious 'information,' the bias to disbelief at some point or another interferring with drawing necessary conclusions. as there are essentially two ways to resolve the matter, by presenting 'proofs,' we end up coming to blows later on: the proofs being statistical vs clinical findings. now, your methods consistently show that our methods don't really work, so you don't accept our outcomes as proof; and, from my pov, i have seen in psychotherapy as in homeopathy for many years, that your methods are deeply flawed and your findings 'not credible,' so i conclude that your methods don't work. there is no way past the impasse.
              "

              Those 2 ways of "proof" are irrelevant for understanding, what Hahnemanns ideas and thoughts were and what the basis and theory behind homeopathy are.
              An atheist can read the bible and summarize different chapters without contorting its content. Where it gets difficult is the interpreting part and concluding part, but any patient christian could determine, whether any misinterpretation is caused by misreading, logically wrong conclusions, by different asumptions, by a lack of belief or is actually sensible though its application is from the pov of the specific sect of the christian wrong and might be thought to be right by other christians.

              So why does the different viewpoint on the validity of different methods of proof interfere with understanding, what Hahnemann is talking about?

              Of course it will seriously affect the impression one will have from the book and especially affect the willigness to be treated homeopathically, but this is not my issue in this thread.

              "in short, when i tell you that your approach, which in other areas is unobjectionable, is 'inappropriate' to the study of homeopathy, what i think i'm really saying is that there is no way to settle the issue."

              Wait, are you talking about my apporoach to decide whether homeopathy works or not or my approach to understand how the internal logic of homeopathy looks like?
              "in physics, you disagree, ok, then you take your disagreement to the lab and settle it. but, as between researchers and homeopaths, there is no commonly accepted yardstick."

              But does that keep researchers from understanding homeopaths pov and vice versa?

              " one thing that drives me nuts in these conversations, is the willingness of skeptics to acknowledge that a negative outcome for homeopathy in a trial necessarily reflects one of two things: either that homeopathy doesn't work, or that the trial was fatally flawed. in practice, however, they always (always) "regress" to assuming that their method is the one to trust."

              Granted, a negative research trial result, just shows that homeopathy does not work under the conditions as they were in the trial. But what does keep homeopaths to then take such a faulty trial, correct the mistakes and then perform a trial without fault?
              Of course that takes some iterations, but it should not take decades to get a trial, which both sides can accept.

              But you also seem to assume in practice that a negative trial only proves one of the above things - that the trial is flawed and you just do not know yet how.
              At least in your trial discussions with Hans you said something like "if this trial also shows no evidence for homeopathy, then i missed some flaw".


              Carn

              Comment


              • #8
                quote: "...any patient christian could determine, whether any misinterpretation is caused by...."

                soytainly. however, the problem will be in demonstrating this to the atheist, who will simply disagree. go back and read hans' exchanges with kv again. no matter how clear hans makes his point, apparently, he continues to feel that kv doesn't get it, and that kv goes back, essentially ignores what hans has said, and states his initial premise or question over again. i would say, this is what i see happen in so many discussions with hans, or other skeptics.

                i think your mistake in trying to 'resolve' this is assuming that human communication is as clear cut as matching up numbers on a calculator: "see, yyyy zzzz." and even when it is that clear, carn, people just don't get it. you said yourself, that hans and i talk past each other all the time ... but the fact is, that is standard operating procedure in human commerce.

                my post was meant, as i said, as a speculative exercise to try to explain some of the sources of miscommunication. anything in there might be more or less true for a given set of "verbal exchanges." the point is, bias, belief, values, perception, comprehension difficulties () ... it very commonly gets it the way.

                and part of the problem is that we are really not talking about getting you guys to the point at which you have a good understanding of homeopathy, in spite of what you say. because in the end, you turn around and want to dump the whole shebang in the toilet - or re-write the organon. your physics student - the one who got the bachelor's degree - would not be given that much latitude, either.

                as far as having homeopaths critique and correct designs, obviously they are also lousy trial designers, according to my analysis.
                "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                Comment


                • #9
                  MRC Hans said:
                  I have even published my comments. If I had gotten it all wrong, why haven't they shredded my arguments? A year or so ago when I published my article in the same place (gave you the link earlier), several of the people here read it and commented .. on whether it was right that I cited already published case stories. Nobody seemed to have any issues with my description of homeopathy.
                  My guess is because it's a tired old arguement; everyone lost interest and have better things to do. Except for bach who seems to have an endless supply of energy to keep plugging away.
                  "The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
                  Carroll Dunham

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LisaAnnan
                    MRC Hans said:

                    My guess is because it's a tired old arguement; everyone lost interest and have better things to do. Except for bach who seems to have an endless supply of energy to keep plugging away.
                    Quite. As I also noted, it could simply be lack of interest. After all, homeopaths have not asked for this discussion. We, the skeptics, are trying to force it upon you, I realize this.

                    Hans
                    You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bwv11
                      *snip*

                      soytainly. however, the problem will be in demonstrating this to the atheist, who will simply disagree. go back and read hans' exchanges with kv again. no matter how clear hans makes his point, apparently, he continues to feel that kv doesn't get it, and that kv goes back, essentially ignores what hans has said, and states his initial premise or question over again. i would say, this is what i see happen in so many discussions with hans, or other skeptics.

                      Heheh, espcially when discussing with KV, who is unusually impervious to any form of arguments or even information .

                      *snip*

                      as far as having homeopaths critique and correct designs, obviously they are also lousy trial designers, according to my analysis.

                      Actually, I disagree. In my opinion, they are excellent.... at designing trials that always leave them a back-door. It is far too consistent to be a coincidence .
                      ...................
                      Hans
                      You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote bach:" quote carn: "...any patient christian could determine, whether any misinterpretation is caused by...."

                        soytainly. however, the problem will be in demonstrating this to the atheist, who will simply disagree. go back and read hans' exchanges with kv again. no matter how clear hans makes his point, apparently, he continues to feel that kv doesn't get it, and that kv goes back, essentially ignores what hans has said, and states his initial premise or question over again. i would say, this is what i see happen in so many discussions with hans, or other skeptics."

                        Of course the atheist might disagree, but he would know what mistake, he made from the christians POV. The only mistake i know about that sceptics like me and Hans do, is to value repeatable experiments far higher than any life long experience or non-repeatable case stories.
                        Obviously this attitude will sooner or later cause thoughts like "Hahnemann claims homeopathy works because his experience( or clinical practice) tells him so, but how do i know he didn't delude himself into it, after all there are thousands of people, who delude themselve into one thing or another. But there is no repeatable experiment to check Hanemann's views, only the confirmation from other people, which is also solely based on experience."

                        But is this the only misunderstanding?
                        I do not think that, because such a misunderstanding would not interfere with a discussion, what place vital force has inside homeopathic phylosophy, as long as sceptics are ready to ignore above attitude long enough.

                        quote bach:"i think your mistake in trying to 'resolve' this is assuming that human communication is as clear cut as matching up numbers on a calculator: "see, yyyy ? zzzz." and even when it is that clear, carn, people just don't get it. you said yourself, that hans and i talk past each other all the time ... but the fact is, that is standard operating procedure in human commerce."

                        I have the assumption, that differing opinions are mainly based upon differing "assumptions"(most people do not know what assumptions they make) about the world.


                        quote bach:"my post was meant, as i said, as a speculative exercise to try to explain some of the sources of miscommunication. anything in there might be more or less true for a given set of "verbal exchanges." the point is, bias, belief, values, perception, comprehension difficulties () ... it very commonly gets it the way."

                        Yep, but you know, but some people are able(i count me among them partly), to forget their beliefs for some time and that way be able to communicate with followers of different believes.

                        quote bach:"and part of the problem is that we are really not talking about getting you guys to the point at which you have a good understanding of homeopathy, in spite of what you say. because in the end, you turn around and want to dump the whole shebang in the toilet - or re-write the organon."

                        In the end? That implies that on the way towards there, we do not misunderstand the oreganon. Of course there will be the turn around sooner or later due to above attitude, but is it this attitude alone and does it realy happen in the end?

                        quote bach:"your physics student - the one who got the bachelor's degree - would not be given that much latitude, either."

                        Ever heard about the Josephson effect?
                        Josephsonson was a physic student, who had a great idea in 1963 at the age of 22, before making his master, who realized there was a unlikely but interesting situation in case of superconductors. He had no full understanding of the topic and yet he spotted something others had missed and solved part of the problem, while being a student.
                        Somewhere in the 70s he and some others, who helped him devlop the idea, got nobel prize.

                        Any student is encouraged to question and check physics and if one finds a mistake/gap, he is free,after thinking realy careful about the matter, to explain it to his teacher and a good teacher will understand the arguments and either point towards the mistakes or admit, that he cannot refute the argument and encourage the student to further think about it and offer him further help with that(which got Josphsons teacher a nobel prize).

                        Seems to me there is a difference between homeopathic teaching and physic teaching.

                        Carn

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Of course the atheist might disagree, but he would know what mistake,EDIT to add: i can't believe you keep insisting on this, in face of the example hans keeps harping on, of kv and how he keeps repeating the same mistakes, the same stupid questions over and over and over, that he DOES NOT know he made a mistake. same with you and hans. he made from the christians POV. The only mistake i know about that sceptics like me and Hans do, is to value repeatable experiments far higher than any life long experience or non-repeatable case stories. Case studies. Case studies are repeatable, within limitations, that is, they are ‘standardized’ (I understand, this is not truly “repeatable”) vehicles that permit comparison between cases. You may disagree about how reliable a method this is, but you must still adhere to correct technical conventions: ‘case stories’ is simply a way of saying that you won’t even consider evidence that doesn’t fit your schema. But the dbpc is also not truly repeatable, tho closer to the ideal than clinical observations; mixing 2 chemicals in a test tube with very predictable results, or setting up a slit experiment, or even dissecting a frog, are truly repeatable experiments. Might I also point out, that your whole approach here confirms my observation, that skeptics are quick to concede that failure of homeopathy in a trial reflects either that homeopathy doesn’t work or that the trial was flawed … and then you quickly regress to saying, pretty much in so many words, that the only real option is to believe that homeopathy failed …. Obviously this attitude will sooner or later cause thoughts like "Hahnemann claims homeopathy works because his experience( or clinical practice) tells him so, but how do i know he didn't delude himself into it, after all there are thousands of people, who delude themselve into one thing or another. But there is no repeatable experiment to check Hanemann's views, only the confirmation from other people, which is also solely based on experience."



                          Carn: ‘I have the assumption, that differing opinions are mainly based upon differing "assumptions"(most people do not know what assumptions they make) about the world .’



                          I have the assumption that people can’t step out of their skins.



                          Yep, but you know, but some people are able(i count me among them partly), to forget their beliefs for some time and that way be able to communicate with followers of different believes



                          I also count myself in that group, and have a sense that you are potentially a member of that group, and even hans at times ….



                          Seems to me there is a difference between homeopathic teaching and physic teaching.



                          I am a mere student of homeopathy, and yet have been privileged to have senior colleagues, professional homeopaths of long-standing, thank me for clarifying an issue or giving them food for thought, or even correcting a mis-impression. As a therapist, I have taught my masters, and have been taught in turn even by my patients. M. josephson is a ‘type,’ or sub-type of 'physicist;' such a type, or sub-type, is not found only in physics classes. such types - physicists, homeopaths, whomever - exist on a continuum, a constantly graded series of variations on a theme. But, carn, we are – I think – trying here to understand the nub of the matter, the hump of the bell curve. Please, realize that it is easy for any of us to come up with ‘stories’ to buttress our own positions, but that does nothing to clarify the central theme, only, in the way you present it, to stereotype your opposites in debate as less flexible or enlightened or open minded or rigorous in method, than vous.

                          EDIT to add: and there are two other problems with this - first, you presume to put yourself in position of josephson (not as laureat, but as someone who will correct the mistakes of your homeopathic masters); and, second - ironically, considering the first - you seek to destroy homeopathy altogether, not to improve it ... i know, i know, you welcome any advance in science, no matter how unexpected ... yeah, speaking about back doors, and disingenuity.

                          i'll tell you, carn, one iteration of hans is enough, so unless you really start getting annoying, and really need to be straightened out - ta ta.

                          p.s. sorry to be so blunt, especially to such a cordial and well-intentioned troll.
                          Last edited by bwv11; 9th December 2004, 09:19 PM.
                          "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bvw11
                            Case studies. Case studies are repeatable, within limitations, that is, they are ‘standardized’ (I understand, this is not truly “repeatable”) vehicles that permit comparison between cases.
                            I fully agree. Case studies are an effective and indispensable tool in health-care research. And well-designed case studies are fully repeatable and comparable, although the noise level will always be greater than in lab tests.

                            Hans
                            You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              bach"p.s. sorry to be so blunt, especially to such a cordial and well-intentioned troll."

                              You should report me to admin, so i can be banned for trolling, forum rules forbid trolling.

                              But maybe there is time enough before i'm banned, to explain something, that should be possible, although i am not able to understand what sceptics trying to uncderstand Organon do wrong:

                              Why do you call me "troll"?

                              Definition from the link of forum rules:

                              "What is a Troll?


                              An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

                              Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

                              Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

                              Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words."

                              AFAIK the only thing, that could fit me is "tries to start arguments"(depending upon definition of "arguments"), though i cannot see, where i tried to start arguments in the 26 posts i made so far.

                              For the rest i'm lost. Especially i think "cordial and well-intentioned" do not fit the definition of troll, so maybe you made a mistake using those attributes.

                              So what makes me a "troll"?


                              Carn

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X